Andreas, I have not seen it, so I dont know, There are some good full length historical films (including much on Byzantium) on the Greek Archdiocese website in Real Media or Quicktime. go to www.goarch.org and follow links to multi-media resources. Hope you find something helpful.

This is terrific overall, I think. You may not agree with all of his interpretations (they are all well-considered), and it certainly isn't a standard history---more of a series of reflections---but I think John Romer really gets Byzantium, especially its mindset and culture, what made it special and different than other civilizations. Also, he takes you all over the place---Italy, Constantinople, Cappadocia, Russia, etc. It is a joy to see all the wonderful places (many of which I will never be able to see myself).

I first saw it on the Learning Channel back in 1997 (its debut) and taped it. Later I was able to buy the DVDs. Buy it or Netflix it!

I have the older VHS 1997 version of this Film, an Exceptional film which relives the glory that was Byzantium. Running time approx. 200 mins.

(From the back cover:)

"Explore gigantic, subterranian water cisterns and the magnificent mosque ( church )Hagia Sophia. Vist the treasuryof St. Mark's in Venice, resting place for some of Christendom's most revered antiquities--never before filmed for television. Shot on location in nine countries, Byzantium: The Lost Empire transposts youtoa world tha thistory has nearly forgotten, but on that you will most certainly never forget."

This is terrific overall, I think. You may not agree with all of his interpretations (they are all well-considered), and it certainly isn't a standard history---more of a series of reflections---but I think John Romer really gets Byzantium, especially its mindset and culture, ....

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Perfectly useful historical term. Old Rome centered on Rome and Greek-speaking eastern Rome centered on Constantinople (the former town of Byzantium) grew to have very different characters and should be made distinct historically to avoid confusion.

My professor and thesis advisor, a Romanian Orthodox, is an expert Byzantinist, and that is what he calls it. In the Byzantine history course I took with him, we spent some time on nomenclature and discussed at what point it was useful to change the name from (Eastern) Roman empire to Byzantine empire. A small number of historians and archeologists prefer to place it at the founding of Constantinople, others place it at the accession of Theodosius, others place it after the fall of western Rome, others place it at the accession of Justinian, and a small number of others do it at the Iconoclastic period.

My professor and I agreed, and others also, that the best time to begin calling it the Byzantine empire is at the reign of Herakleios. I think the empire after the Persian and Islamic wars was different than before---there was a paradigm shift, and it was after then that the character of medieval Byzantium as we know it was largely established. I also think that by this time the Hellenization of the empire was largely complete.

John Romer did not do a program on the Latin Roman empire but on the medieval Greek-speaking Roman empire historians call Byzantium. I think it is an appropriate title, avoiding confusion, and he does not give short shrift at all to the Byzantines' identity as the Christian Imperium Romanum---in fact, much of his program is devoted to it.

Perfectly historical term to you and your professor. The "historians" who use the term are the ones we claim, quite correctly, to be wrong. No where in all my readings have I seen the Constantinopalitans refer to themselves as anything but Romans.

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Perfectly historical term to you and your professor. The "historians" who use the term are the ones we claim, quite correctly, to be wrong. No where in all my readings have I seen the Constantinopalitans refer to themselves as anything but Romans.

That's not the point. The Persians did not call themselves Persians, the Germanic tribes did not call themselves Germans, the Scythians did not call themselves Scythians, etc. There was no such thing as "Late Antiquity" or "medieval Italy," but the terms have some use for historians.

No historian claims that the Byzantines called themselves that. That is what WE call them to avoid confusion. Anyone who has studied anything at all of Byzantine history knows that the civilization was the continuation of the Roman empire in the East. But the Roman empire of ca. 300 was not the Roman empire of ca. 1000, hence the use of (artificial but useful) Byzantine to describe that medieval civilization.

-

Historians do not mean anything else by the use of this term. Honestly, for too many Greeks and Slavs, the field of history seems to be only an arena for competing nationalisms to battle it out.

Historians do not mean anything else by the use of this term. Honestly, for too many Greeks and Slavs, the field of history seems to be only an arena for competing nationalisms to battle it out.

Lubeltri,Making general insulting statements about particular ethnicities based on how it "seeems" to you is simply stereotying and a sweeping ad hominem, and a cheap shot below the belt at yoiur opponent whom you know to be Greek. Trying to cover it up as a "general statement" simply won't wash.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Regardless of how Lubeltri phrased what he said, there is a serious problem with the perception of history and it being used to in modern politics to justify policy. And of course there are Western historians who embrace nationalism and Slavic and Greek scholars who emphatically reject it. A very good, but subtle, refutation of this was written in Norman Davies's introduction to God's Playground.

Yep. Calling Constantinople "Byzantium" is no different to calling Native Americans "Indians". Native Americans never identified themselves as "Indians", it was simply a name imposed on them by those who felt themselves superior to them and wanted to treat 500 different Nations as one by giving them an identity which in no way was reflective of their real identity. In the same way, using the words "Byzantium" and "Byzantine" is just a cheap shot which any enlightened person would not lower themselves to. There was never a "Patriarch of Byzantium" or a Christian "Emperor of Byzantium". They were the Patriarch of Constantinople, and the Emperor of Rome whose Christian subjects were not "Byzantines" but "Romans". In my estimation, using the word "Byzantines" to describe Christians under Constantinople, given what is now public knowledge about the history of Constantinople, the New Rome, is simply insulting, not only to Christians under Constantinople, but Christianity itself, since it is an attempt at revisionist history in order to divorce Christianity from the history of The City of Constantinople.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

In my estimation, using the word "Byzantines" to describe Christians under Constantinople, given what is now public knowledge about the history of Constantinople, the New Rome, is simply insulting, not only to Christians under Constantinople, but Christianity itself, since it is an attempt at revisionist history in order to divorce Christianity from the history of The City of Constantinople.

My goodness, I didn't know it was that bad! Shouldn't we be re-naming some things on this forum then? Like in this poll, shouldn't the top entry be "Roman" chant?

We Romans are a forgiving bunch. We understand that there is a lot of bad learning that needs to be undone. In fact, when Constantinople fell to the Ottomans, the Grand Duke of the City, Luke Notaras said: "Better the Sultan's Turban in the midst of the City than the Latin Mitre" and this proved to be prophetic. To this day, the Turks still call the Eastern Orthodox Christian citizens of Turkey "Romans"- a respect which even the Western Churches do not accord them. The Conquerers of Constantinople still treat the conquered citizens with more respect than the West does. The Turks only took their lives and livelihood. The West wants to take away even their identity.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Yep. Calling Constantinople "Byzantium" is no different to calling Native Americans "Indians". Native Americans never identified themselves as "Indians", it was simply a name imposed on them by those who felt themselves superior to them and wanted to treat 500 different Nations as one by giving them an identity which in no way was reflective of their real identity. In the same way, using the words "Byzantium" and "Byzantine" is just a cheap shot which any enlightened person would not lower themselves to. There was never a "Patriarch of Byzantium" or a Christian "Emperor of Byzantium". They were the Patriarch of Constantinople, and the Emperor of Rome whose Christian subjects were not "Byzantines" but "Romans". In my estimation, using the word "Byzantines" to describe Christians under Constantinople, given what is now public knowledge about the history of Constantinople, the New Rome, is simply insulting, not only to Christians under Constantinople, but Christianity itself, since it is an attempt at revisionist history in order to divorce Christianity from the history of The City of Constantinople.

I think you are presuming too much here. Do you really think the 99% of historians who use the term Byzantine have such motives?

Just one of many examples: Deno John Geanakoplos, the eminent Yale professor of Byzantine and Orthodox Church history who died in October, a recipient of the Gold Cross of the Order of King George I and named an Archon by the Ecumenical Patriarch, used Byzantine in his work. Do you ascribe such malevolent motives to him?

The Conquerers of Constantinople still treat the conquered citizens with more respect than the West does. The Turks only took their lives and livelihood. The West wants to take away even their identity.

What citizens, George? There are hardly any left. You know you may have a hard time finding an EP soon, or at least one who is based in Constantinople. . .

Perfectly useful historical term. Old Rome centered on Rome and Greek-speaking eastern Rome centered on Constantinople (the former town of Byzantium) grew to have very different characters and should be made distinct historically to avoid confusion.

My professor and thesis advisor, a Romanian Orthodox, is an expert Byzantinist, and that is what he calls it. In the Byzantine history course I took with him, we spent some time on nomenclature and discussed at what point it was useful to change the name from (Eastern) Roman empire to Byzantine empire. A small number of historians and archeologists prefer to place it at the founding of Constantinople, others place it at the accession of Theodosius, others place it after the fall of western Rome, others place it at the accession of Justinian, and a small number of others do it at the Iconoclastic period.

My professor and I agreed, and others also, that the best time to begin calling it the Byzantine empire is at the reign of Herakleios. I think the empire after the Persian and Islamic wars was different than before---there was a paradigm shift, and it was after then that the character of medieval Byzantium as we know it was largely established. I also think that by this time the Hellenization of the empire was largely complete.

John Romer did not do a program on the Latin Roman empire but on the medieval Greek-speaking Roman empire historians call Byzantium. I think it is an appropriate title, avoiding confusion, and he does not give short shrift at all to the Byzantines' identity as the Christian Imperium Romanum---in fact, much of his program is devoted to it.

Give it a look and you will see.

Dark Ages is a perfectly useful historical term, especially if you want to discredit the Latin Church's role in civlizing Europe and keeping it civilized.

What paradigm shift? It was still Roman (the Old Empire was Hellenized as well).

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Yes, but they are still there, and they are still called "Romans" by their Conquerors. You won't even give them that respect.

And, I might add, the Turks even call me "Roman" too. And again, you wont accord me that respect. I'm treated with more respect by the non-Christian enemies of my Church than by you.As the Grand Duke said: "Better the Sultan's Turban in the midst of the City than the Latin Mitre"

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

What citizens, George? There are hardly any left. You know you may have a hard time finding an EP soon, or at least one who is based in Constantinople. . .

In Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem we have millions of Rum (though millions speak Arabic, like yours truely ).

There's always the Avignon solution.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Personally, I think Byzantium is a grand, glorious and august name. The Byzantines were greater than old pagan Rome. They were a Christian imperium whose glory and power preserved and protected Christian civilization, including that in the West. Their legacy endures.

THAT is no country for old men. The youngIn one another's arms, birds in the trees- Those dying generations - at their song,The salmon-falls, the mackerel-crowded seas,Fish, flesh, or fowl, commend all summer longWhatever is begotten, born, and dies.Caught in that sensual music all neglectMonuments of unageing intellect.

An aged man is but a paltry thing,A tattered coat upon a stick, unlessSoul clap its hands and sing, and louder singFor every tatter in its mortal dress,Nor is there singing school but studyingMonuments of its own magnificence;And therefore I have sailed the seas and comeTo the holy city of Byzantium.

O sages standing in God's holy fireAs in the gold mosaic of a wall,Come from the holy fire, perne in a gyre,And be the singing-masters of my soul.Consume my heart away; sick with desireAnd fastened to a dying animalIt knows not what it is; and gather meInto the artifice of eternity.

Once out of nature I shall never takeMy bodily form from any natural thing,But such a form as Grecian goldsmiths makeOf hammered gold and gold enamellingTo keep a drowsy Emperor awake;Or set upon a golden bough to singTo lords and ladies of ByzantiumOf what is past, or passing, or to come.

You are neither Roman nor Byzantine. The empire passed away a long time ago.

I don't even call myself Roman though my ancestors came from both what is modern-day Italy and Greece.

Of course the Byzantines were Romans, but like I said before, the empire of ca. 300 was very different from the empire of ca. 1000. The distinction is made not to show disrespect but to reduce confusion. Which is why even Greek historians use it.

Tell me lubeltri, if a Navaho just finished telling you that he considered being called "Indian" to be an insult and explained to you why this is so, would you tell him that "Indian" is an "august name" and insist on calling him that? Or would you reflect on how you word things?

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Dark Ages is a perfectly useful historical term, especially if you want to discredit the Latin Church's role in civlizing Europe and keeping it civilized.

Not useful. It has been discarded and discredited.

If Byzantium ever had a pejorative sense, it has lost it, among most historians, at least. The field itself is even called Byzantine studies. I doubt Byzantinists disrespect the very civilization they've spent their whole lives studying.

A good parallel would be Middle Ages---it used to have a pejorative meaning. It has lost that. Gothic too.

Dark Ages is a perfectly useful historical term, especially if you want to discredit the Latin Church's role in civlizing Europe and keeping it civilized.

Not useful. It has been discarded and discredited.

If Byzantium ever had a pejorative sense, it has lost it, among most historians, at least. The field itself is even called Byzantine studies. I doubt Byzantinists disrespect the very civilization they've spent their whole lives studying.

You are neither Roman nor Byzantine. The empire passed away a long time ago.

Exactly who are you to tell me what I am and what my ethnicity is?"Greek" is not an ethnicity in Greek. If someone asks me in Greek what my ethnicity is, the correct answer is "Ρομιος" ("Romios", ie. a Roman). "Australian-Hellene" is my nationality, but only because I have dual citizenship. If I didn't have a Greek passport, I would simply be "Australian".If I identify my ethnicity as "Roman" when speaking in Greek, by what right do you tell me that I am not Roman?

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

D'oh! Of course you're right. I shouldn't have left the Hungarians and Romanians out of this It's really a problem across the former Soviet bloc countries.

You can still find Americans convinced of something akin to manifest destiny, and election year (or this current thing of two year campaigns) brings out the ol' Americana mythology. And for that matter there is what I would call destiny driven history (nationalistic is too narrow of a term) in Iran, Turkey, China... and that is just what is sitting on my desk right now (I swear that this semester is going to kill me). While post WWII politics have muted this in Western European, it often lurks just below the surface (and I'd cite another major work of Davies about the Isles as a scathing attack on current British historical thought). To reduce this to simply an Eastern European problem is careless considering that there are these types of conflicts flaring up around the world.

Yep. Calling Constantinople "Byzantium" is no different to calling Native Americans "Indians". Native Americans never identified themselves as "Indians", it was simply a name imposed on them by those who felt themselves superior to them and wanted to treat 500 different Nations as one by giving them an identity which in no way was reflective of their real identity. In the same way, using the words "Byzantium" and "Byzantine" is just a cheap shot which any enlightened person would not lower themselves to. There was never a "Patriarch of Byzantium" or a Christian "Emperor of Byzantium". They were the Patriarch of Constantinople, and the Emperor of Rome whose Christian subjects were not "Byzantines" but "Romans". In my estimation, using the word "Byzantines" to describe Christians under Constantinople, given what is now public knowledge about the history of Constantinople, the New Rome, is simply insulting, not only to Christians under Constantinople, but Christianity itself, since it is an attempt at revisionist history in order to divorce Christianity from the history of The City of Constantinople.

For that matter, the indigenous peoples of the Americans never identified themselves as a collective "Native American." Where are I live there are mostly Navajos, so I call them "Navajo." And the other Arizona tribes don't really get along (Hopi, Navajo and Apache), so there is no real sense of pan-Native-Americanism that I see. So perhaps it would be better to call Greeks, Turks, Macedonians, Albanians just Balkanish people?

And perhaps the real reason why Anglophones say Byzantine is because there already was a Roman Empire (and a real one, based in - imagine this - Rome!). The unqualified use of the term "Roman" is simply too ambiguous in English.

And just as an ironic point, how many of the same people in this thread that have their panties in a bunch at the naming of the Byzantine Empire also foam at the mouth at the residents of the Republic of Macedonia calling themselves Macedonians...

You can call yourself whatever you want. But those are two different Romes, buddy. We weren't talking ethnicity. We were talking about a political entity which has long since passed away. In that sense, you are not a Roman. Nobody is.

Tell me lubeltri, if a Navaho just finished telling you that he considered being called "Indian" to be an insult and explained to you why this is so, would you tell him that "Indian" is an "august name" and insist on calling him that? Or would you reflect on how you word things?

First off, a Navajo would likely appreciate having his or her ethnicity spelled correctly. And as fits into this discussion quite well is that Navajo is not their tribal name in their own language. They are the Dine, but in ENGLISH they call themselves Navajo. In fact they find it a bit odd when a non-Navajo calls them Dine.